Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 24 Aug 2016 (Wednesday) 21:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

 
Jared5
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 142
Joined Aug 2016
Location: Seattle
     
Aug 31, 2016 00:26 |  #706

Is anyone else outraged that the battery grip is THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS!?!?
That's a lot for a battery grip!


EOS R (x2) | 5D Mk4 (x2) | 5D Mk3 | 5D Mk2 | 7D Mk2 | 7D (x2) | 80D | 50D (x2) | 40D | EOS M (x4) |
85mm f/1.8 (x2) | 50mm f/1.4 (x2) | 28mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/2.5 macro | RF 35mm f/1.8 IS
16-35mm f/2.8L | 24-70mm f/2.8L II (x2) | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,380 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 605
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 31, 2016 00:30 |  #707

Jared5 wrote in post #18112147 (external link)
Is anyone else outraged that the battery grip is THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS!?!?
That's a lot for a battery grip!

Yeah that's pretty crazy but seems to be the typical pricing for Canon's grip. That's why I bought mine (for the 5D3) spotless used for $225 3 years ago. The same goes for L-plates. I hate paying full price for stuff like that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,566 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6201
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 31, 2016 00:32 |  #708

That is why I buy aftermarket grips for less than $100. The price canon wants to charge is outrageous for what you are getting.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,252 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6325
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 31, 2016 00:52 |  #709

the grip will be cloned with the quickness I think. The body looks so similar to the 5D3... Anyhow, aftermarket grips for bigger bodies has been poor in my limited experience. They dont call it early adopters fee for nothin  :p


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,566 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6201
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 31, 2016 00:55 |  #710

I bought the meike grip for the 5d3 and it worked flawlessly, there are some good alternatives.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,741 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 665
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Aug 31, 2016 01:07 |  #711

Grips are like flashes IMO. There are some really, really good third party alternatives available at a fraction of the price of equivalent OEM flashes but if you want the best confidence that it's going to work properly 99% of the time the OEM device is the better option (not a guarantee though).


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,476 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 497
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Aug 31, 2016 03:33 |  #712

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18111888 (external link)
So the raw file is effectively a binned result of a double exposure?

AJSJones wrote in post #18111910 (external link)
Both (sub) pixels were exposed at the same time for the main image (by summing the counts in the two) while, it appears, the second image is just the A sub-pixel, with ~half the counts but all the phase difference that the DP AF system saw. Main image = A+B, DPraw additional image = A, so B can be derived from "main - A". So even if A has half the counts of A+B, DPRaw processing will provide A+B for best well count and noise, while the difference between A and B provides whatever depth information is available with this system. Each sub pixel will receive ~the same photons/area so the performance of just one sub-pixel (the A or B map) will be the same and ~½ of the image data count. Its noise performance will suffer (compared to the A+B map) so having the data separately does not enhance IQ, if anything it will be a lower IQ image if you just use the A map...

It's certainly a case (from the link I posted earlier) that the "A only" image has values of half the magnitude (makes sense, as the main image is A+B, and you'd expect both pairs of pixels to contain very similar information). What's not clear yet is where clipping will have happened; i.e. through the pipeline of actual sensor wells and A2D converters, will the "A" pixel contain useful data when the main A+B image contains clipped values. Even if there's more noise in the A only image, you're only using it to recover the top stop of highlights (so the signal to noise ratio should be good). Time will tell I guess.

gjl711 wrote in post #18111935 (external link)
Of all the features, this is the one that intrigues me most. The bokeh shift looks pretty worthless but focus shift could be a game changer.

I'm wondering how the calculation of the focus shift is actually done - whether it's just effectively changing the blend between the A and B pixels, or whether there's some vector type calculation going on. If vectors can be computed from the pixel pairs, then it might just be possible to extend the magnitude to get more correction - likely at the expense of some corrections being erroneous.

I'm speculating ;-)a, but, there are a lot of clever and creative people out there - just look at the dual ISO solution cooked up by the MagicLantern team; that combined great investigation and exploration of the hardware, a fair bit of maths, and some decent coding. There may be more mileage in the Dual Pixel raw files to come.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonneymendoza
Goldmember
3,788 posts
Likes: 383
Joined Apr 2008
     
Aug 31, 2016 03:34 |  #713

Talley wrote in post #18111381 (external link)
i really hate sony owners. So sick of their constant blah blah blah. Why can't they get over the fact that some people just prefer SLRs and also Canons. Last I remember photography was 10% gear and 90% brain behind the camera. I've seen way more amazing award winning photos come from non sony, non full frame crop cameras. Want awesome... go look at Gabes gallery.

Heck I'm hung up on gear but not like a sony owner is.

Im a sony owner? Do you hate me despite pre ordering a 5d4 and owning mostly canon gear as well sony?


Canon 5dmkIII | Canon 85L 1.2 | Sigma 35mm ART 1.4|Canon 16-35mm L 2.8 |Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 | Canon 70-200mm F2.8L MK2 | Canon 430EX MK2 Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krikricricri
Junior Member
29 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 31, 2016 03:44 as a reply to  @ jonneymendoza's post |  #714

a new comparison with Jpegs in French

http://www.focus-numerique.com …ruit-electronique-12.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Avatar
4,439 posts
Gallery: 647 photos
Likes: 4295
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 31, 2016 05:03 |  #715

Scottboarding wrote in post #18112096 (external link)
All these mirrorless fan-boys are saying DSLRs are going out, but I don't see that happening at all.

For me personally, I think they are a threat to crop sensor DSLR's but not FF bodies. If I was starting out i rather something small like an M3, A6300 or XT-2 than a crop DSLR. That's just me though.


Sony Alpha A7III - Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM - Sony FE 35mm f/1.8
Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 - Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon EOS M5 - Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 - Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 - Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM

Website (external link) / flickr (external link) | Twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 31, 2016 06:15 |  #716

jonneymendoza wrote in post #18112234 (external link)
Im a sony owner? Do you hate me despite pre ordering a 5d4 and owning mostly canon gear as well sony?

I was ranting. Just dislike sony owners that say sony only.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,093 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 129
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Aug 31, 2016 06:26 |  #717

I think any brand that works for you and makes great pictures is okay. My iPhone gets much more use than my cameras. I have quite a few cameras now.

I have not gotten any notice to when my 5DIV will be shipped, except shipping is scheduled all over for 9/8. I received my extra battery and extra 32 and 64 GB CF cards already. I've never owned a CF card over 32 GB before, but I will be using video a little more. I also think I'll get a video grip thing. I have an old one, but it's heavy. Any suggestions on that?


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, SONY a7iii, 7D2, G12, M100, M50, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children and grandchildren are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,902 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2370
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Aug 31, 2016 07:10 |  #718

FEChariot wrote in post #18111936 (external link)
I've seen that guy before, he is misinformed a lot. However he does bring up some valid points. Particularly, if the Canon world thinks it was a good idea for Canon to limit the memory card to CF and not at least allow Cfast then objective criticism is non existent in the Canon world.

yes, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. There are a lot of legitimate gripes coming from canon people, the chosen memory types might be the biggest.

mike_d wrote in post #18111941 (external link)
I'm OK with the decision to keep CF/SD. I don't shoot video and the buffer/write speed are still an improvement over the Mk3. And this way I don't have to sink hundreds of dollars into new cards and a new reader.

i think it's pretty clear that canon is expanding their pro/semipro video offerings and limiting video on a DSLR. For the introductory price of the 5DIV i think they went too far in this limitation. Multiple codecs should have been implemented, really bad decision to not allow that.

umphotography wrote in post #18111982 (external link)
Additionally to this point

Light is really crapola at 25000 ISO. Terrible light generally results in sub par photos no matter how good the sensor is

crapola light is always going to be crapola light and at some point supplemental lighting will need to be used to get good results

Personally, to me, the beauty of this new technology is what happens at the lower ISO's

exactly. Gotta think the goal is to get better ISO at, let's say, 6400 or 12,500. So if you do that, you are by default going to get better above that threshhold. In other words, better 51K ISO is a result of better 6400 ISO, not the other way around.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,476 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 497
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Aug 31, 2016 07:31 |  #719

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18112328 (external link)
yes, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. There are a lot of legitimate gripes coming from canon people, the chosen memory types might be the biggest.

i think it's pretty clear that canon is expanding their pro/semipro video offerings and limiting video on a DSLR. For the introductory price of the 5DIV i think they went too far in this limitation. Multiple codecs should have been implemented, really bad decision to not allow that.

I do think that Canon have been too conservative with the memory card slots (the jibe of "welcome to 2012" is not unwarranted). Sure, as long as it'll use the fastest UHS-I speeds (of around 100MB/s, which is 800Mb/s) then either/both cards will be fine for even 30fps 4k MJPEG (60fps would be a stretch on the SD card, but the 5D4 doesn't support it anyway).

However, it is an issue for stills. The sub-$2000 Nikon D500 claims up to 200 raw images, and has a UHS-II SD slot (as well as XQD), so the 5D4 looks pretty poor in comparison.

The 7D got a firmware update that increased the buffer size, and the cynic in me suspects it was less about better optmised memory handling, and more about increasing a constant in the code that would allow it to use a bit more of the internal memory. Memory's dirt cheap these days, and even with 40MB raws, a paltry 1GB of RAM is enough for 25 shots (before you even touch the card). The fact that a number of Canon's bodies now have apparent buffer sizes that are good for exactly 3 seconds of shooting makes me suspect there's probably more RAM available - it's just limited by a constant in the firmware. I mean - it's not like we're griping about 5 vs 6 shots; it's 21 vs 200 (even allowing for the 50% greater resolution of the 5D4, the D500 buffer is way higher, and would be able to empty that buffer to the cards way faster).


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
don1163
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 1802
Joined May 2015
Location: Washford, Somerset/ UK
Post edited over 3 years ago by don1163.
     
Aug 31, 2016 07:41 |  #720

Just out of interest, does anyone know if it's possible to change the video codec by way of a firmware update ?
Maybe Canon could change it in a future update or Magic Lantern could come up with something..


1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

841,872 views & 2,668 likes for this thread
Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is BobNoyes
973 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.